grindael wrote:There are strong arguments for Mormonism? Really? Where?
Strongest arguments for a particular point if you prefer. I think one problem which makes Mormons dislike dialog with many critics is the presumption that the whole has to be proved before addressing the particulars. That's not a terribly useful approach to dialog, even if one believes it.
grindael wrote:There are strong arguments for Mormonism? Really? Where?
Strongest arguments for a particular point if you prefer. I think one problem which makes Mormons dislike dialog with many critics is the presumption that the whole has to be proved before addressing the particulars. That's not a terribly useful approach to dialog, even if one believes it.
What particular point with the strongest arguments did you have in mind?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
grindael wrote:There are strong arguments for Mormonism? Really? Where?
Strongest arguments for a particular point if you prefer. I think one problem which makes Mormons dislike dialog with many critics is the presumption that the whole has to be proved before addressing the particulars. That's not a terribly useful approach to dialog, even if one believes it.
I agree, Clark. It is possible to have a conversation about something without everyone agreeing on every last particular, if both parties are copacetic. Unfortunately, the tendency these days is to get stuck on differences instead of finding mutually beneficial areas of discussion.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
I have a question wrote:What particular point with the strongest arguments did you have in mind?
Depends upon the topic. For every topic there is a strongest argument or at least reasonably strong set of different arguments. (Neither apologists nor critics are univocal - there are often disagreements on particular points). Now admittedly there may be some topics that simply don't have strong responses. But I think both critics and apologists have a duty to engage with the strongest arguments of those they disagree with.
So I was just relating a general principle rather than making a particular claim about say etymologies. With regards to etymologies I think most arguments are fairly weak as there's so little data. At best you have speculative conjectures that often neglect alternative hypothesis. So for instance you tend to have semetic sounds and semantics focused on since there's no idea what the common Nephite language was.
ClarkGoble wrote:So for instance you tend to have semetic sounds and semantics focused on since there's no idea what the common Nephite language was.
Why wouldn't the common Nephite language be the same as they all spoke back in Jerusalem?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Why wouldn't the common Nephite language be the same as they all spoke back in Jerusalem?
Because most apologists assume the Nephites were a relatively small population that merged with a relatively large population with several different pre-existing languages. The typical assumption is that Hebrew and whatever method of writing that was were used primarily by a priestly class and not the general population. So it'd be analogous to say Latin in the 18th century among the educated versus the language of the region the educated lived within. There are some verses that strongly suggest that when they mention as an oddity that people were trained in the language. Mosiah 1:2-4 strongly hints at that. Mosiah 24:4 also talks of multiple languages although I'd argue the "language of the Nephites" is not Hebrew.
I have a question wrote:Why wouldn't the common Nephite language be the same as they all spoke back in Jerusalem?
Because most apologists assume the Nephites were a relatively small population that merged with a relatively large population with several different pre-existing languages. The typical assumption is that Hebrew and whatever method of writing that was were used primarily by a priestly class and not the general population. So it'd be analogous to say Latin in the 18th century among the educated versus the language of the region the educated lived within. There are some verses that strongly suggest that when they mention as an oddity that people were trained in the language. Mosiah 1:2-4 strongly hints at that. Mosiah 24:4 also talks of multiple languages although I'd argue the "language of the Nephites" is not Hebrew.
Lots of baseless assumptions there. Instead of assumptions, let's stick with the evidence. God kept the land the Nephites populated from all other nations. So no merging, no dilution of the language. Ergo, the evidence (the book itself) tells us the Nephites would still have spoken the language of their fathers from Jerusalem.
Of course, if we base discussion on making up assumptions to suit ourselves, perhaps they spoke Vulcan or Emoji....
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:Lots of baseless assumptions there. Instead of assumptions, let's stick with the evidence. God kept the land the Nephites populated from all other nations. So no merging, no dilution of the language. Ergo, the evidence (the book itself) tells us the Nephites would still have spoken the language of their fathers from Jerusalem.
I have a question wrote:Lots of baseless assumptions there. Instead of assumptions, let's stick with the evidence. God kept the land the Nephites populated from all other nations. So no merging, no dilution of the language. Ergo, the evidence (the book itself) tells us the Nephites would still have spoken the language of their fathers from Jerusalem.
Umm why are mine assumptions and yours not?
because what he said is written in the Book of Mormon and what you said isn't.
grindael wrote:There are strong arguments for Mormonism? Really? Where?
Strongest arguments for a particular point if you prefer. I think one problem which makes Mormons dislike dialog with many critics is the presumption that the whole has to be proved before addressing the particulars. That's not a terribly useful approach to dialog, even if one believes it.
Well, I'm willing to take one item at a time. I think most here are too. That is what all these individual posts are, mostly. Interest in some aspect of Mormonism. Is there a lot of cross traffic? Sure. But again, what are the strong arguments for Mormonism... ANY arguments. I haven't really seen any.
I don't mean as a way of life for some, I'm talking about the supernatural elements, it's "faithful" history and the character of the various leaders of the church and their "apostles" who make the policies and doctrine.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.